News

‘Progressive’ Hunter Claims Collectivist Government Edicts the Solution to U.S. Gun Troubles

The legal concept of gun restrictions based on “sporting purposes” came from National Socialists, so naturally Opposite Day “progressives” look to their past in planning for our future. (screen capture from Vox link post on Twitter)

“Sweden may have the answer to America’s gun problem,” self-described “responsible hunter” Tom Heberlein tells the “progressive” readership of Vox. Then again, per Heberlein, Sweden has the answer to America’s economic problems, too.

An American who chooses to live in Sweden, sociology professor Heberlein is a big fan of socialism, arguing why the purer Swedish model is preferable to an American version that still has not completely transformed. That even more superior results might be achieved in a society limiting government to specifically-delegated functions and leaving experimentation on everything else to the people seems not to be an option.

After all, the great object is total control. What kind of Opposite Day “progressive” champion of egalitarianism would want citizens to make choices for themselves? Who better to lecture the private sector on superior delivery systems for goods and services than someone who has spent his entire professional career at the tax-funded academia trough?

And who better to lecture America’s fiercely independent gun owners than a collectivist Fudd?

Now before any of you get bent out of shape because that word, understand it’s not intended to disparage all hunters, just the sporting purposes über allesgunkapos ready to throw anyone with other ideas about uninfringed RKBA under the bus. And everyone knows where such mandated restrictions as a means of disarmament came from, right?

You got it, from the National Socialists. Even though they want to deny any connection and now use that term to throw people off track by instead accusing conservatives of being Nazis…

So naturally, a Suecophille hobbyist doesn’t have much use for rights over privileges, especially the kind that “shall not be infringed.”

“As we face a firearm crisis in America today, it’s time for hunters to stop hiding behind the Second Amendment and claim the moral high ground as our nation’s responsible gun owners,” Heberlein proclaims. He doesn’t seem to consider that it ain’t about hunting, and that some of us aren’t hiding behind it – we’re standing in front of it, “guard[ing] with jealous attention the public liberty,” and ready to “preserve it [with] downright force.” We’re not going to give up the ability to do that.

So no, professor, if you want to store your guns in a vault somewhere other than where you live, go for it, but that’s not going to fly here. Ditto for licensing and registration – since we know criminals are exempt from such requirements (see Haynes v. United States, where the Supreme Court ruled to require a felon to register a gun would violate Fifth Amendment protections), and especially since we know how National Socialists have abused such lists in the past (see what happened to Jewish Olympian Alfred Flatow).

Useful idiot sport shooters who support gun owner control laws seem to believe the promise of Polyphemus that they’ll be eaten last — or not at all. What they think will happen once they’re no longer needed to infiltrate and subvert the gun community is anyone’s guess, particularly since another “progressive” faction is hostile not just to “blood sports” and “animal murderers,” but to anything but strict, sustainable veganism.

“Fortunately” (there are two kinds) as far as Sweden is concerned, it may not come down to Scandinavian socialists having the final say on what the law is. If it stays on its present course, it looks like already-taken-root Sharia may be in Sweden’s future. If that’s the case, ol’ Heberlein might want to get his 12-gauge and Remington out of the vault, because I don’t think the “restrictive” gun laws are going to have much sway on hordes of criminal “migrants” and the “refugees” bent on jihad.

Then again, for someone who would lecture us on the “responsibility of gun owners,” it doesn’t appear Heberlein includes the responsibility to use arms to preserve freedom and resist tyranny. Typically, gun owner control proponents expect someone else to assume the risks of bearing arms to enforce their pet diktats — so, if allowed to survive, the requirement for all conquered peoples will be utter submission.

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

20 comments

“Useful idiot sport shooters who support gun owner control laws seem to believe the promise of Polyphemus that they’ll be eaten last — or not at all.”
I don’t care who you are, that’s some good writing right there. The sentence following does not disappoint either. Well done, Sir.

It seems to me that Mr. Heberlein is better at hindsight than forward thinking on the basis of objective reality. Recent headlines suggest he may wish to spend less time chasing birds and more time protecting his women. He’d be doing the world a huge favor by removing himself from the gene pool…IMHO

It’s important to make note that while the left in Sweden arrogantly suppresses gun ownership, they too are promoting their own demise with the infiltration of islam that is currently responsible for substantial increases in rape and other crime against kafirs. And, as we see, those example setters of Sweden are lecturing the USA and leadership in the USA is all full steam ahead to strip Americans of our rights while insisting we don’t offend the muslim. Demonic islam is responsible for close to 300 million murders under the name of their violent rule. Count your days youth of America.

I suspect that the elites of western civilization are loosing the Muslims on the civilized people of the world so that they will kill as many people as possible, which will help reach the Agenda 21 goal of a world population of 500,000.

Offend the Muslim??? The group of people who are the second most offensive; the absolute most
offensive group being those working to reduce population (by murder) and enslave those remaining???

The foundation for my “political correctness” lies in the second amendment. I use discernment,
common sense, and common decency to prevent damage to another’s feelings.
I will N O T “bite my tongue” to please monsters.

If a coyote attacked me, I would do my best to kill it.
If a leach was sucking my blood, I would kill it.
These creatures are only doing what they’re supposed to do,
there is no malice in them.

We are being attacked, from every direction, by some evil
and wicked people; with malice of forethought and extreme prejudice.

Well said Jeanette….and spot on concerning Islam. It is a scourge that is consuming Britain and all of Europe like a cancer. Considering that we have a Islamo-Marxist running the country, the same fate awaits us. Our country is being filled with Syrians, Somalis and Muslims from every country and corner of the globe by executive order. The entire current criminal Administration is totally infiltrated with Muslims in our most sensitive national security departments (DHS / CIA). The Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR are running the show and laughing in our faces while Soetoro Sobarkah is in Martha’s Vineyard playing golf. Thank God for our Second Amendment, and being armed to the teeth, because it will probably be our only salvation in the final analysis. God Bless our Sovereign Constitutional Republic.

Your oathkeepers are a collective socialist group who came from socialist jobs. Example military police firemen. And your group is collectivally socializing to push your political agenda of your style of collectivism for the common good

Spin it any way you want, hal. The truth is that no matter how you want to stereotype Oath Keepers, we have the Constitution, and we are here to defend that document. That is our platform. What is your platform, overt socialism?
Enjoy your day there.
Salute!
Elias Alias, editor

Collective socialist group ? What a stupid remark Hal. Pushing a political agenda ? That remark is even more stupid than your first one….Jeanette said it best…you are obviously on Hillary’s payroll. You are a “lost ball in high grass” Hal……get a grip !

The second amendment was not written to protect hunters and target shooters. It tells us its purpose. It sets out the per-requisite for a “free state” — a well regulated militia (remember, there was no standing army; the militia was the military). Then it says, “(comma — which means “but” in this type of sentence) the right of the “people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…” So the “people” (which everywhere it is used in the Constitution and Bill of Rights means “individual persons…”) are to be as well-armed as the military. The second amendment is about political power and not only about keeping and bearing arms! It is the amendment that guarantees the others…